.
Feedback

San Mateo County Voters Split on Business-Related Taxes

A handful of school parcel tax and bond measures showed narrow support in Tuesday's primary election.

San Mateo County voters appear to have split on three business-related taxes, and a handful of school parcel tax and bond measures showed narrow support in Tuesday's primary.

According to preliminary results, voters appear to have defeated a proposed increase in the transient occupancy tax and a new tax on commercial parking facilities, while a business license tax on car rental businesses was still too close to call.

Measure U, which would have raised the transient occupancy tax by 2 percent, to 12 percent, was opposed by 53.5 percent of voters, according to semi-official results.

Measure X, a business license tax on parking facilities in unincorporated areas, also appears to have failed, with 53.1 percent of voters casting "no" votes.

Measure T, which proposes a 2.5 percent business tax on car rental businesses, had just over 50 percent support and was too close to call.

All three measures require majority approval.

A parcel tax measure benefiting a local school district appears to have narrowly passed, and another was too close to call. Both require two-thirds approval, or 66.7 percent of the vote, to pass.

Measure W, which will levy a $67 parcel tax on properties in the Redwood City School District, earned 69 percent support, according to preliminary results.

Measure Y, a $48 parcel tax on properties in the Jefferson Union High School District, was lingering just above the threshold it needed late Tuesday, with semi-official results showing the measure with 67.2 percent support.

An $81 million bond measure to benefit the Cabrillo Unified School District -- Measure S -- was also too close to call, with 55.3 percent voting to support it. The measure needs 55 percent approval to pass, and some votes still remain to be counted.

Two special district taxes on the ballot for voters in Portola Valley and the unincorporated San Mateo neighborhood of Highlands have passed.

Measure V would raise an annual parcel tax in Portola Valley's Wayside II Road Maintenance District from $625 to $950, and Measure Z would extend a $65 annual parcel tax for police and fire services in the Highlands neighborhood.

Both need two-thirds support, and unofficial results showed Measure V garnering 70 percent of the vote, while Measure Z received 86 percent support.

-- Bay City News

Follow us on Twitter | Like us on Facebook | | Blog for us

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Pacifica Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Hnin May 24, 2013 at 06:31 pm
Please help share it on your facebook as well. Anything to find our cat.Read More http://sfbay.craigslist.org/pen/laf/3825190526.html
Janet Arline Barker May 17, 2013 at 11:18 am
Awesome! Next Tuesday, Thursday or Friday are open. Name a time and place. I used to write 3Read More different columns for San Bruno, Millbrae, and Burlingame Patch. I am ready to write for Pacifica Patch & blog too. Here's my personal blog...I do sporadically. Www.art-Janet.blogspot.com My art studio is at Sanchez Art Center #11
Christa Bigue (Editor) May 17, 2013 at 11:05 am
When can we meet for coffee Janet? Since you're the first one to post in our biz update section youRead More get to have coffee and chat with your local Patch editor! Email me at christa.bigue@patch.com and we'll find a date and place.
Anon. April 14, 2013 at 01:43 am
I can start with the comments on the Theravance drug, fluticasone fluroate - the active moiety inRead More this compound is the same, fluticasone (proprionate) that has been marketed by GSK for the same indication for approximately 25 years. Indeed, that patent is so old, and the drug has such a proven track record for safety and efficacy, that the patent has expired and there are generic versions available. There is also in implicit assumption by the author that the only reason that the FDA will approve medications in a short time span is because they are for 'life-or-limb' or unmet serious medical need. This is just not the case - regulators in many countries, including the FDA in the USA, may give accelerated approval to a product, where the safety and tolerability of a product is equivalent to a similar active agent which has already been approved. I suspect this is the case for fluticasone fluroate - but I am not privy to the details of the regulatory filing. I note that none of the companies mentioned here, nor the FDA, has provided input to this article. The journalism in this article smacks of someone trying to make a name for themselves quickly by scaring uneducated and/or anxious people. The science is just plain flawed.
Pacificat April 12, 2013 at 12:49 pm
Please tell us in what ways it is ill-informed
Anon. April 11, 2013 at 08:22 pm
Ill-informed, sensationalist rubbish.
Deb Wong March 26, 2013 at 06:09 pm
Thanks, Stacie!
Stacie Chan (Editor) March 26, 2013 at 02:51 pm
Absolutely stunning photos, Deb! Thanks for sharing. I really feel like I was there by just perusingRead More your photo gallery.